In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review

Video

The EOS 5DS and SR offer broadly the same video options as the EOS 5D Mark III. There's a choice of compression options, with ALL-I (where each frame is compressed individually) or IPB compression (where only the differences between key frames are retained) available at up to 1080/30p. 60p recording is only possible at 720 resolution, limiting the options for shooting footage for playing back as slow motion.

The 5DS/R cameras are missing key video-centric features, like focus peaking and zebra (highlight) warnings. And while it's safe to say that pro-videographers won't turn to the 5DS cameras for video shooting, these features are available on many of the 5DS' mirrorless counterparts.

Video Quality

Our video still isn't, of itself, a test of video quality (since that can't sensibly be assessed without seeing how the cameras reproduce motion), but gives an idea of how the camera's sensor is being sampled and the degree to which it's being sharpened.

Interestingly, the 5DS R (and, by inference, the 5DS) seems to achieve its video very differently than the 5D Mark III. Whereas the Mark III bins its pixels together, the 5DS R appears to be skipping readout lines to get down to the 1080 resolution (the giveaway being the asymmetrical rendering of moiré on the Siemens stars around the scene's central target). Despite this, its results to appear to be fractionally more detailed than its lower-res sibling.

Compared to its two most obvious peers, the results look very similar to those of the Nikon D810, both in terms of detail and capture artefacts, but with slightly more aggressive sharpening on the Nikon. The 5DS footage appears to handle aliasing and moiré better than the D810, though. The Sony Alpha 7R II looks better in both respects, when shot at 1080 using the near full width crop of its sensor. But, good though this probably pixel-binned footage is, it's capable of significantly better results by shooting 4K footage from the Super 35 region and downsizing (which you can read more about in the a7R II review).

Good Light vs. Nikon D810

In this test we see the Canon EOS 5DS R shot side-by-side with its nearest DSLR rival: the Nikon D810. While both cameras' makers promote their video capabilities, the reality isn't quite so video friendly. Both cameras lack focus peaking to aid manual focus. The Nikon offers limited choices of compression or bitrate while the Canon omits zebra warnings to assess exposure.

In this video you can see that the Canon's footage appears fractionally less detailed than the Nikon's (with the difference looking like a slight difference in sharpening). This lower sharpening, if anything, provides more freedom at the editing stage. The only option for shooting at 60p on the Canon is to drop to 720p which, as you'd expect, looks significantly worse than the D810's 1080/60p footage.

Overall the footage is fine but not particularly impressive for a camera costing this much. This just reinforces our impression that the 5DS and SR are primarily intended for a stills-shooting audience.

Low Light Performance vs. Sony a7R II

Here we look at the low-light performance, in this case compared with the Sony a7R II.

The EOS 5DS R does pretty well in this test, producing usable footage despite being at ISO 12,800. There's little sign of temporal noise (dancing patterns in the shadows, of the kind you can see in the Sony's Super 35 1080 footage, for example), but there's also very little detail. The noise reduction that's keeping everything clean is also giving a rather over-smoothed, waxy effect to the subject's skin on the darker side of his face.

Overall, the results are competitive with most of the a7R II's output modes from a noise perspective, barring the a7R II's very best performing 4K Super 35 mode which excels in most, if not all respects. That said, the footage is never quite as detailed as any of the 4K modes on the a7R II.

Handling/Controls

The 5DS and SR includes a reasonable number of features for videographers but a number of others are absent. So, while it offers the same bitrate options as the EOS 5D Mark III, it doesn't have a headphone jack for audio monitoring. Like all Canon DSLRs, it's missing features such as focus peaking, zebra warnings and flat gamma profiles that increasingly appear on competing models (and on Canon's Cinema EOS cameras).

Autofocus

Below you can see how the video autofocus compares to that of the Sony a7R II and the Nikon D810, first with fairly simple back and forth motion, then with slower more erratic movement tracked using Face Detection:

The 5DS' contrast detect-only AF (CDAF) system means it cannot keep up with the Sony a7R II's depth-aware, on-sensor phase-detect AF system in video. The 5DS R spends much of its time catching up as our subject moves, meaning realistically most of the footage is out of focus. Compare this to the limited hunting the a7R II displays, keeping our moving subject largely in focus for most of the video.

That said, in comparison to the Nikon D810 Canon has done an impressive job of settling at a focus point without too much wobbling back and forth for confirmation, especially considering its CDAF-only system. The Nikon readjusts focus only intermittently and, when it does so, exhibits significant hunting, resulting in a jarring experience. The Canon's result wouldn't make the cut for dedicated and discerning videographers but they're not overly distracting for personal projects. Note that the lack of focus peaking means magnified live view is your best bet for accurate manual focus, short of focusing off a live HDMI feed on a higher resolution monitor.

Overall, that's the story of the EOS 5DS and SR: it's perfectly usable as a video camera, but it hasn't been designed with serious videography in mind.

Overall, that's the story of the EOS 5DS and SR: it's perfectly usable as a video camera, but it hasn't been designed with serious videography in mind. Both the video quality and the level of support tools provided is more appropriate for stills shooters wanting to dabble in video than it is for anyone with serious video aspirations. It's hard not to get the impression that Canon would much prefer those users buy a camera from its Cinema EOS range.

Comments

I am upgrading from a 7D to FF and am in the Canon lenses vs Nikon camera dilemma. I have looked very closely at your Real World DR test images and noticed that exposure of the bottom half of the Canon image is much darker than than of the Nikon one. An increase in exposure adjustment of 2/3 stop on the Canon image is needed to level the shadows up. I compared the extent of clipping in the sky and it is is identical in both, indicating that exposure from perspective of the sky is the same for both images, but the Nikon is actually using its extended dynamic range in the shadows, even before making adjustments. The difference in ISO noise (according to all the various tests) appears to be about 1.5 stops and in this image makes a difference, no matter hard one tries to fix it. A very useful image indeed, thank you. However, this is a marginal situation shooting into the sun and could have been got round with either an ND grad or multiple exposures, but I'll still wait a bit longer!

I came back to re-read this review. It suggests to me, then and now, a somewhat mediocre effort by Canon, and probably not as good as it could / should be.

I find this interesting, because in the intervening years, I keep see it popping up in the forum with owners singing its praises. I had kind of dismissed it because of the review (silver afterall) but have a new found interest because of the generally great feedback.

I know this review is more than a year old. But I just bought the 5DS-R. The last photo in the conclusion talking about noise and dynamic range is shot at f22! Are you kidding me! The diffraction is horrible and even more for such a big sensor. Was there an attempt to make this camera look bad??

Sigma dp2 Quattro looks better (sic) then all of them on this chart except skin color!!Look in the black and white line drawing picture to the left of center and it's easy to see the Sigma dp2 Quattro crushes all other cameras on this chart. Just look along the top of the wall and compare these high pixel cameras to it. How about you compare you current camera to. I bought mine for $699 on sale. When will the new Quattro sd camera be added to the chart picture using the 50mm Art lens?

Rishi, in your studio scene... don't you think that using a $220 lens (ranked 207th at DxOmark) from the early 90's on the Canon 5Dsr vs. a $1000 lens (ranked 5th overall at DxOmark) from 2015 on the Sony A7r II ... would not give a very scientific result?

What's unscientific is assuming a 90s lens is necessarily worse in our studio scene than a 2015 one.

In reality:

Absolute sharpness assessments should only be made from the central region of the studio scene.

Many tests have shown the Canon 85/1.8 to be just as good centrally as some of the best lenses by F5.6 (our shooting aperture), & have higher central resolving power than the 85L.

Clearly, the 'early 90's' Canon lens is doing really well considering it appears to be out-resolving the a7R II/55mm combo in our studio scene, so why the complaints?

DxO's lens score is heavily weighted by many factors other than sharpness at F5.6, so is irrelevant in a discussion of studio scene sharpness at F5.6.

We considered 'leveling the playing field' by standardizing on Sigma 50mm Art, but found it underexposed the image on some cameras relative to others, so wouldn't give a fair noise assessment without reshooting all cameras w/ that lens, which is impractical right now.

Yes I also thought it looked sharper..not just in the central region, but all the way out to the corners. I went back to DxOmark and put them side by side in their comparisons (on the 5dsr and A7rII).. and their results show the Sony beating the Canon by a large margin at every f-stop!

Seems either DxOmark or DPR needs to recheck their results.. I am leaning towards DxOmark being off. I have compared several lenses they have tested against The Digital Picture results (where you can physically see center, mid and corner sharpness)..and often they seem to get very different results.

Some other factors which could have an effect on the studio scene (based on lens used) would be contrast, colour, Ca to name a few...

As far as "leveling the playing field by standardizing": using the same methodology, with which program you use to process each camera brand seems long overdue...

@DRP I've been missing the beta samples you took with the 5DSr- those in the car scrap-yard particularly good - one of the best sample galleries I've seen, and I'd say better than the sample gallery you ended up with.

Plus they are very useful resource for judging lenses on the 5DSr.

Can you add them as another album to the sample gallery here, for others to find more easily?

For our studio dynamic range tests, we do leave color NR at default in ACR. In fact, we leave the entire Sharpening/NR panel at default settings, since we believe it's closer to what most people will use as a starting point when processing in ACR.

We do not apply any luminance NR - which is exactly the default policy in ACR as well. Luminance NR does sacrifice some detail - that's simply an insurmountable reality.

We see no reason to increase luminance NR just to make the test easier for poorer performing cameras - that'd be like testing a Porche at 30 mph. Why would we do that?

We treat each camera the same way - so it's a level playing field. Advantages one camera shows over another will be retained, even when applying NR: because the camera that doesn't need it will have more detail. I actually prefer to almost never apply luminance NR especially when printing, as it makes things look plasticky, & noise, if anything, sharpens the print.

You guys did not leave color NR at default for the real world dynamic range test. I downloaded the RAW and the very first thing I noticed when opening it is that it had no color splotching where your published version has hideous color splotching. I could only replicate your results by reducing color NR to 0. (I did not check the studio scene.)

As for luminance NR, a small amount does not sacrifice any significant detail but does go a long way towards making the pushed shadows usable. It's not driving a Porsche at 30 mph. It's adding a rear spoiler to improve traction so you don't slide out at 150 mph.

It's valuable to see a test scene from two sensors with all NR off to judge the technology. But that should be noted. And ideally followed with a comparison that includes likely processing.

Rishi.. using your "we treat each camera the same way-so it's a level playing field" does not take into consideration how different manufacturers like their "default settings". For instance Canons right out of camera tend to lean slightly soft whilst Nikon are over sharpened. With no regard to post processing or which processor works best with each manufacturer, you have over simplified the process.

"As for luminance NR, a small amount does not sacrifice any significant detail but does go a long way towards making the pushed shadows usable."

And the same luminance NR could be applied to the Nikon/Sony, but for lower tones. Meaning if it begins ahead, it stays ahead. Your argument makes no sense - any NR you apply to one can be applied to the other, except the one that starts off ahead will only need it for even more direly underexposed tones.

"It's not driving a Porsche at 30 mph. It's adding a rear spoiler to improve traction so you don't slide out at 150 mph."

... and the car that has better traction to begin with also benefit from that rear spoiler to improve traction... just maybe at 180mph because it's just fine at 150 mph.

So again your argument doesn't make sense, unless you're trying to say that beyond 150 mph, it doesn't matter, b/c you never go above 150mph. Fair enough, but others may wish to.

cbphoto123: What do manufacturer defaults have to do w/ Raw processing??

One is that you guys should clearly state the processing parameters used when you do not use default parameters. The only appropriate response to that is: "We will be sure to do so in the future."

Two is that it would be nice to see both a hardware vs. hardware comparison, and a comparison that represents what a professional can expect with post processing.

"any NR you apply to one can be applied to the other, except the one that starts off ahead will only need it for even more direly underexposed tones."

NR is not an unlimited good. There's not much more to extract from the Sony/Nikon file, and what's there benefits less from NR than the Canon file does.

That's actually a testament to the Sony sensors. But it also means proper application of NR closes the gap a bit. It does not eliminate it, but the Canon file doesn't look nearly as bad in comparison with the right processing.

Rishi, by always using the same processor on all camera makes "So it's a level playing field" is really only testing... how that particular processor works with different cameras. As far as camera defaults... to come to conclusions about sharpness, dynamic range, colors, noise in shadows etc... with no post processing & without taking into consideration that different processors work better with different camera makes..is oversimplifying your conclusions.

cbphoto123: We talk about both camera JPEGs - which take into account camera processing - and Raw, where we level the playing field with a common converter that does very little processing to the Raws.

What else would you possibly have us do? We're providing both analyses for you, taking into account manufacturer processing (JPEG) or leaving it out (Raw), while providing you with all the data so you can look into it yourself if you don't wish to listen to us.

If you'd like us to analyze the Raw from each camera using every Raw converter out there every time, trying all different sorts of settings, well, you could say goodbye to our site altogether because of an unsustainable business model. It also wouldn't tell you much, since we can already comment on Raw noise, dynamic range, and sharpness performance from the 'level playing field' Raw analysis we already perform, since any differences between cameras we note with one Raw converter will carry over to any other Raw converter.

I rented this camera for 3 weeks. It's a noise monster and incredibly difficult to get sharp images. The slightest, I mean THE slightest vibration causes blurred images. I passed and bought a Pentax 645Z.

After owning this camera for 1 1/2 years, I've pushed it to it's limits and doing so, learned new habits that one just didn't do in a 5D MKIII. I've shot sailboat regattas from the back of a bouncing small boat and got crisp images. Shadow recovery places this camera in a different realm as the others, allowing one to drop ISO and shoot for proper highlight exposure, latter bringing back the shadows in post. I don't think it's fair to blame the camera for one's lack of knowledge in it's abilities.

Two days ago I tried the DxO RAW converter for the first time. It has a clear advantage of producing less noise than the Lightroom. The difference is really noticeable. This while I am sort of getting impatient with the noisy shadows of the 5DIII. Within the next year I think I will get a Sony 7RII or, if Canon manages to create a replacement for the 6D...what a magic word, 'IF'...

Back end support! Was strongly considering A7RII to replace my aging DSIII & 7D. Going with the 5DSr & 7DII for one huge reason beyond all of the "image quality" talk; back end support. There is "zero support" with Sony. 2 weeks ago, I cracked the screen on my DSIII. In a busy period so I drove it to CPS support in Itasca, Il. and the NEXT DAY, they emailed me saying it was ready for pickup. $185 later and my camera functions like new. IF I would have needed to send it to NJ or CA., that would have only added 4 days to the turnaround time. When you're making $$ with your gear, lousy support is a deal breaker far more critical than most tech specs. CPS rocks!

I had a bad experience with Sony support. Years ago, they manufactured a bad batch of sensors whose packaging let in water vapor, and the sensors died an ugly death. Sony had also sold the sensors to Nikon and Canon for use in small point-and-shoot cameras. Coincidentally, I had bought all three. Sony promised free sensor replacements. Nikon and Canon replaced the sensors at no charge, and Canon even paid the shipping. Sony ignored their promise and tried to charge me over $100 for the "free" sensor replacement. That was the end of Sony for me.

Ditto, Sony's horrible support and Lack of USB 3.0 for us Tethered shooters at a faster pace, and being a Canon user for 20 years, left me with the only option and that was the 5Ds, A7sII for Video. My Canon service where I live give me priority help, sony does 3rd party service centers and cannot even fix their own cameras. Plus they do not give a darn about repeat customers, they just try and sell as much as they can with out any service. Hopefully they will fix that but I am not holding my breath.

I have 5d mk 3 and wish to switch to 5ds but i am kind of uncertain for the reason of the low light issue and the fact of it s a less flexible camera, think it needs the proper light... .I do some events and still life..product pack shots...and portraits

In therory 5Ds is more flexible than 5DIII as it has a lot more functions. RGB metreing sensor, iTR Focusing, more resolution, better Auto ISO functions, anti flicker, better Dynamic Range and no real hit on noise performance in prints.

Only if you ned more than 5 fps and ISO above 12800 (and you could still underexpose 12800 and brighten in postprocessing) the 5DIII would be more flexible.

I have used my 5DsR on three jobs now. I'm getting ready to return it, primarily because of the crushed blacks the camera delivers. Rishi, you mention that a new ACR may rectify that issue. I'm not sure what ACR is, and I'm not clear whether that change is a firmware change that could fix my camera or would only fix new cameras. I usually import my raw files into Lightroom where I slide the highlights down and the overall exposure up to compensate. Then I slide the shadows up as needed. With my 5D Mark III and my A7RII I get good results--the shadows open up nicely with acceptable noise. With the 5DsR the shadows are harder to open up and the noise gets ugly fast. I'm ready to call this a "fail" for the 5DsR, unlike your tests of ISO tolerance, etc., where you say the 5DsR is improved over the 5D Mark III. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks.

personally, I am planning to create an x-rite color checker profile with Adobe DNG Profile editor. Probably in combination with the faithful camera curve. This is what I do with 5DIII currently and I expect comparable results with the 5Ds.

I'm surprised you find the 5D III ok. It's one of the worst full-frame cameras in terms of dynamic range - far far behind the a7R II. You should be seeing very different results between the 5D III and a7R II.

The 5DS R is better than the 5D III when viewing at equivalent size. At the pixel-level, noise in shadows is about the same as the 5D III.

You're definitely working with Raws, not JPEGs, right?

I'm still not sure why ACR (the Raw conversion engine in Lightroom) is crushing 5DS blacks. I believe Eric Chan of Adobe uploaded a more neutral profile for the camera in some forum - I forget where though.

Hi Rishi-Thanks for your response. I didn't understand that it was Adobe that was crushing the blacks in their 5DsR profile. Sounds like I could have benefited from another raw converter. Really just laziness on my part--I'm used to my Lightroom work flow. Yes, I really like the dynamic range on the A7RII, and that camera has become my first choice on most shoots. But I have always gotten good results (as I mentioned) from the 5D Mark III. Meanwhile, I returned the 5DsR. The Sony's pixel count is pretty good, and the night work I do with it is quite good considering the big pixel count. I just wish the A7RII was a little more professional in its functionality.

For me the best camera is made of: Nikon Body, Nikon AF, Canon lenses, Sony sensor, Fuji Film image simulation, Canon interface...and yes I am Canon Fan trying not to bias.I wish someone will make one for me. :)

Agreed. However, I think DPReview needs to totally review the conclusion section and the camera comparisons. As for the Canon 7d mark II, according to the Camera Comparisons section, although it inherits a modified version of the AF module on 1DX, it falls behind canon 7D in terms of metering and focus accuracy...

I think that is genuinely an inappropriate, over-generalised comment one could supposedly come up with! If you truly understand the nature of photography, you shouldn't go around saying which of the two mega photography companes is superior to the other. There is though a level of professionality to consider for both companies.

I have had my 5DS for a few months now......Primary use for portraits & the last two weddings..... very impressed with the 50mp as can really crop into a image & have the detail caught, I use it alongside my 5D MK111 which comes into it's own when low light non flash needs to be used, the high ISO levels produce excellent results.

Simple fix: don't use the shutter button for AF. Reassign the AF button to the rear of the camera. SOOO much better! :)ETA: do a search on how / why this is good. I'll never go back to that way of shooting.

Canon is the brand which is highly preferred for digital camera and video cameras. its camera quality is very good and easy to handle and maintain. if we talking about battery quality then it is also good.

Quite surprised at how DPR dwelled on and on about 6 stops of pushing. Page after page of how the Sony and Nikon can handle this better than the Canon. What about if you expose the canon within a stop or 2... like the photographer actually knows what he/she is doing?

It's not about 6 stops of pushing, it's about watching the behaviour when you do push shadow tones. It helps you know the degree to which you can lift the shadow regions in that image that you exposed 'correctly,' or knowing whether you can lift the foreground in that sunset shot, or whether you need to bracket and blend.

Yes I understood that, but considering the resolution, the huge amount of amazing lenses, fast accurate focus, great color etc etc etc. DPR seems to have a love affair with SonyA7RII... barely touching on its awful ergonomics, battery life, navigation etc etc etc...As a professional of nearly 30 years now.. I am about aperture and shutter... mixed with a great piece of glass, and now an amazing sensor. Sure one could argue that the Sony sensor has more DR... seems to be the trendy topic at the time. The quality glass of Canon, that I am shooting with a camera made for photographers. Photography seems to escape you guys lately. U are obsessed with the sensor (especially if its Sony)... Sony does make great sensors... but crappy cameras

Ultimately, the references in Canon reviews to other cameras aren't necessarily saying 'you should buy this other camera' (particularly at this level, people are likely to have lenses tying them to one system), it's merely pointing out that some aspects of the performance are not as good as are possible.

83% and a Silver award is a very good result and I'm hoping the review gave enough detail that you can draw your own conclusion, if you believe we gave that aspect too much weight. (I'd like to think we didn't, but everyone has their own set of priorities and levels of importance).

If you read the a7R II, you'll actually see that most of the review is not dedicated to just the sensor, but to the other things about the camera that remove the camera from the equation, and let you take pictures.

I'd invite you to give the a7R II review a thorough read, to understand how removing AF inaccuracies, tracking objects like faces & eyes, removing issues due to mirror & shutter shock, mitigating issues due to shutter speed & camera shake and, yes, enabling flexibility by capturing a wider range of tones with less noise, all aid to make it easier to take pictures, not work around camera limitations.

And since you're emphasizing the quality of Canon glass, allow me to remind you that many Canon lenses function incredibly well on the a7R II.

'Photography seems to escape you guys lately' - ironic, b/c in the a7R II conclusion, I talk specifically about how the a7R II allows me to focus on the photography, as opposed to AF calibration or shutter speeds to avoid shake.

"What about if you expose the canon within a stop or 2... like the photographer actually knows what he/she is doing?"

That misses the point of high contrast scenes that exceed the dynamic range capabilities of your camera. But don't just take our word for it, have a read of our interview with 3-time Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki to understand why dynamic range matters.

For some the a7RII is a beautiful tool to take great photos with.. for other not. Looking at your own "Pros and Cons"... the list of negatives on the side of the Sony way outweigh those of the canon. I do not shoot video so this is not an issue for me with the Canon. Mind you.. the Sony really does not shoot video either! Where is the mention that in 4k ..camera will over heat in 20+ minutes of shooting?In live view nearly impossible to focus because the screen gets around 3-4 stops darker.. On top of this, as a "professional" camera there is none/next to no professional services to insure a timely repair on anything that breaks down. As far as lenses (canon or any other brands that are not native) the focusing is way slower and less accurate then on the bodies they were intended to be on.

Finally one more thing. If you look at the photo samples for the 5DSR vs those for the Sony (in DPReview of each camera)..amazing how most of the Canon samples are back lit by the sun or the sunset is right in the face of (extremely high contrast relative to background.. or in very low light situation. whilst the photos of the Sony are much nicer exposures in a variety of situations that make for a much nicer image. Or is this really just because the Sony takes better photos?

Rishi Sanyal: "I talk specifically about how the a7R II allows me to focus on the photography, as opposed to AF calibration or shutter speeds to avoid shake." (speaking of the 5DSR) Yes having to deal with things like shutter speed, aperture etc is a real drag in photography.

I read this AF works 'incredibly well' now so often. Unfortunately the combination of an A7rII with my collection of Canon glas and three different adapters was more of a crying game then everything else. Combine that with the ergonomics and quirks of a Sony and you got something many people will happily avoid.

So why not talk about all the Canon lenses which work like crap instead of the ones which work rather ok in best case? And isn't it pretty telling that people even accept this limiting experience just to avoid Sony lenses?

I guess that is the price to pay if you put specs over everything else.

I agree. It seems that today's digital photographer wants a camera that is essentially a very expensive point and shoot. The challenge of photography has always been working within the constraints of the gear. I pick the Canon DR constraints because of the Canon glass. It's also quite academic, as all 14 bits of channel info do not make it into the final image. You need to crush some blacks or pull down some whites to squeeze that raw image into LR or PS. (WIsh Adobe would update their programs so we could work at 16bit!)

As a video instrument, this camera seems to be deliberately compromised. No clean HDMI, and no headphone jack. Very well, the videographer can do without the headphone output. The record meters are a good indication of what the sound channel is doing and your main concern is to record a clean signal, so you have to attend to these details in the first instance, regardless of whether the camera allows monitoring or not. No 4K provision is a clue that this camera (and its image sensor/downstream electronics) cannot produce this type of output signal.

What you do get with this camera is more resolution: A finer Bayer gradation, and all other things being equal, the ability to produce still images at lower resolutions (say at the megapixel count of the 5DIII) that are well below the imager's Nyquist point. This advantage alone is huge.

Having said that, Canon should have a lower price point; one comparable to that of the 5DIII. More resolution, but a tradeoff on video features.

Because it is NOT for video. Go buy a Sony or higher end Canon if you want professional video. I never even shot one video with my 5dMIII as the profiles STINK, no c-log makes it useless and ML is too much of a pain to use for my taste.

Well, I just bought my 5Ds R. I was weighing whether birds or landscapes would be more important in my near future; 1D X or 5Ds R. Then, I saw amazing BIFs captured by a 5Ds R, and that, largely, decided it. The 5Ds R may not be a birder's camera, but neither is it a prisoner of the tripod. My idea of a team of 5Ds R and 7D Mark II cameras is now a reality.

Have the 5DSR and the Sony A7RII and have to say that the only thing keeping me with Canon is glass -- The sony just does not have lenses to put on its nice sensor -- I used to love my canon or sigma art prime lenses for around the home shooting, but I just absolutely love what I am getting with my sony or zeiss 55 and 35 and can't wait to try the batis 85 which is a fav length for me with the kids. I love the focus peaking and usability of the sony and found it so easy and intuitive to use. But have to say that the sony lenses suck and I could not trade in my 100-400 II and 7DII combo for birds/wildlife for anything sony.. I found metabones just plain unreliable and slow. Things freeze, and you have to power on/off etc and fiddle around for things to work. So even for landscape I could not trust it for the few seconds of fab color. So for around the home I am using sony with the few good primes but am sticking with canons for my outdoor photo hobby use

I have a 5D Mark II and I'm considering an upgrade to 5 DS.I saw the results of the new DPP4 in conversion of RAWs, they're very very good, better than the Lightroom conversion, I think it's necessary to re-test the 5 DS only using DPP4 for an average, absolute rating

I tested the new Canon DPP 4 against LR5 (Canon 5MK2). Lightroom creates noisy conversions from CR2 Files. DPP4 creates very clean and sharper Images. I tried to get the same result with LR5 - but never reached this level od DPP4.

It is to think about it - using Adobe Software to convert Canon RAW Datas - because the Software is not optimal for Canon! This is not a fair comparison against other Brands and Modells in dpreview Reviews. Try DPP 4 for the 5 DS!

Mabey, the way Techrader goes, to compare the RAW Datas after converting with the Cameramakers RAW converter is the more objective way. There results for the 5DS differ massiv from dpreviews results!

My research shows: Adobe influences in this test the results......unfortunately for canon. Give DPP4 a chance.

Dpreview does that to keep things consistent. You will have to deal with it.

C1pro does a better job with Sony raw files that would give them an even larger color and dynamic range lead but acr is AL we get.... And it makes sense. There are far too many raw converters out there and the goal of dpreview is to do their best to review the cameras hardware and not 3rd party software.

I get what you are saying though because the differences can be alarming.

The increased noise is present in the Raw data itself, as analyzed by statistical analysis software. Sure, different Raw converters apply different amounts of NR, but our ACR results are not unrepresentative of the actual Raw data.

I find the low-light AF factor quite interesting, as I consider which high-resolution camera to acquire. (I followed the link to the comparison.) The balance, for me, just shifted a bit away from the D810, toward the Canon 5Ds R.

I cannot find how the RAW conversion ist done, I assume ACR for all cameras, for the sake of comparison?

Just these days I am amazed again how much better DPP renders my 5DMKII Raws, compared to LR/PS. The photos get just so much "cleaner" and less noisy, in a way it is just impossible to do with ACR. (It is just really a pity to make the workflow more cumbersome with it)

I therefore believe that ACR is not the best tool to get out the best of Canon RAWs - although of course I understand the reason for using it.

Believe it or not, for many pro photographers (especially photojournalists) absolute image quality is not a requirement. Reliability, ergonomics, and lens selection are far more important. Photographers like Michael Melford or Nevada Wier often shoot with zooms, which are optically inferior and less sharp than fixed equivalents (at relevant focal lengths). These pros will also tell you that that their photos have never been rejected due to lack of sharpness or dynamic range . Pro's worry about creating a great photo -while many amateurs (especially the dilettante's among them) tend to worry about charts, image comparisons and biased camera brand parity.

I believe you. I also believe that there are techies out there and every drop of improvement etched out by technology is a very juicy experience for many of them. Same reason some people change their car just to cut 0.1 sec from the 0-60 sprint....

Are you going to print big, then resolution and quality matters. Are you a news journalist, getting the image is more important. But it is always more important to get a great shot rather than having the best gear.

Rishi, when you do this for a living you have no choice but to deliver stunning keepers day in and day out....it doesn't really matter what system or camera one uses, if you are a pro you will quickly learn to get the most out of your system, even if your system on paper doesn't fare so well on some or other point....if a pro cannot bring home the bacon using a Canon/Nikon/Sony etc etc one shouldn't blame the equipment but rather look at ones own abilities

I just hope people understand this camera still takes excellent photos! Just on some extremes of lighting you have to work around (add light, etc) to make up for DR and shadow noise. But if you compare this to the cameras from just half a decade ago it is a phenomenal camera. I don't think I've had a client complain about the background shadow noise yet!

I'd agree.And to me, it only matters so much if I get the most detailed noise free shaows in the market. I'd just add some more noise reduction in shadows and trade in some details in those areas. Will there be too little details in shadows after that with 50MP? probably not.

More about gear in this article

In a recent interview with My Modern Met, Australian photographer Jem Cresswell describes the intricacies of his project, Giants, a series of stunning underwater portraits of humpback whales during their annual migration to Tonga.

In the latest in his series of 'Behind the Shot' articles, landscape photographer Erez Marom takes us deep into Patagonia, and explains how he captured a nighttime view of the Torres Del Paine. Read more

Tudor ApMadoc's usual photo haunts include the iconic architecture and gritty abandoned structures of Detroit, but a recent trip took him to an entirely different landscape - the canyons and big skies of the American Southwest. He brought a Canon 5DSR, 11-24mm F4 and a bag full of favorite lenses to capture Arizona's colors. Read more

Mikey Schaefer is no stranger to the great outdoors. As a professional photographer who specializes in shooting in some of the most extreme environments on earth, he tests his body - and his gear - to the limits. In this field test we're following Mikey on a sports lifestyle / editorial shoot with Canon's EOS 5DS and 5DSR, near his home town in Oregon. Read more

Canon's EOS 5DS may not have its more expensive sibling's self-canceling optical low-pass filter, but it's identical in all other ways starting with a 50.2MP full-frame sensor. We put its high resolution sensor and 61-point AF module to the test for some real-world shooting - take a look. See gallery

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.